AUCTORES
Globalize your Research
Research Article | DOI: https://doi.org/10.31579/2578-8965/015
1 MFM Unit, Departmen of Obstetrics and Gynecology , Security Forces Hospital , Riyadh Saudi Arabia
2 Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, King Faisal Specialist Hospital and Research Center, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
*Corresponding Author: Ahmad Talal Chamsi, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Security Forces Hospital, Saudi Arabia.
Citation: Elham Al Mardawi, Samar Toukhi, Serdar Coskun, Wafa Qubbaj, Ahmad Talal Chamsi, Maha Tulbah and Wesam Kurdi. Obstetrical and Neonatal Outcome after Pre Implantation Genetic Diagnosis; Eight Year Experience at King Faisal Specialized Hospital & Research Center. J. Obstetrics Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences.3(1) DOI: 10.31579/2578-8965/015
Copyright: © 2019 Ahmad Talal Chamsi. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Received: 17 December 2018 | Accepted: 10 January 2019 | Published: 11 January 2019
Keywords: pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD); obstetrics; neonatal; outcome; perinatal
Abstract
Objectives: To determine if there is any observable effect of pre implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) on obstetrical outcome and perinatal morbidity and mortality, birth defects, neonatal outcome in addition, finding the rate of misdiagnosis.
Setting: King Faisal Specialist Hospital and Research Center (Reproductive Medicine & Perinatology Sections) at Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Design: A retrospective chart review of PGD patients from Jan 2001- Dec 2009.
Materials and Methods: A total of 70 PGD pregnancies and 70 matching spontaneously conceived pregnancies were reviewed. The main outcome measures were rate of multiple pregnancies, gestational age (GA) at delivery, mode of delivery, sex, apgar score (A/S), birth weight, presence of birth defects, misdiagnosis and perinatal and neonatal mortalities.
Results: Data were collected from 79 children born after PGD and compared to 72 children born after spontaneous pregnancies. PGD group had significantly more multiple pregnancies. However, there was no statistically significant difference between other outcomes in terms of: birth weight, GA at delivery, sex distribution, perinatal mortality and presence of congenital malformations. The misdiagnosis rate was 1.4%.
Conclusion: PGD does not add risk factors to the health of babies born after the procedure. The perinatal death rate and rate of congenital malformations were not higher for PGD group in this study.
Since the development of amniocentesis in the early 1970s, couples at risk for a genetic disease have been recommended to undergo prenatal diagnosis with the possibility of terminating an affected pregnancy and giving birth to only healthy children. More recently, preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) has been proposed as an early form of prenatal diagnosis based on the analysis of a single cell: a blastomere biopsied from regularly cleaving day 3 embryos, or the polar bodies in the case of oocytes (Verlinsky et al., 1990).
PGD was first described in a clinical setting in a groundbreaking report published by Handy side et al., (1990). The first application for PGD was in patients who were carriers of an X-linked disease and had thus one chance in four of having an affected child. Sequences on the Y-chromosomes were amplified by PCR to discriminate male from female embryos, and only female embryos were transferred. Other indications for PGD were quickly introduced including; selected single gene disorders, the detection of aneuploidies, and structural chromosomal abnormalities. In addition, PGD cycles has also been performed for different indications like; repeated spontaneous abortions or ART failures, the selection of embryos according to their human leukocyte antigen type, search for genes that predispose for cancer or late onset diseases, and, social sexing (Simpson 2001, Sermon et al., 2004 & Basille et al., 2009).
Couples who are referred for PGD often have a complex reproductive history, including pregnancy terminations, birth of an affected child, or neonatal death. Structural chromosomal aberrations such as balanced translocations might also be associated with recurrent miscarriages and infertility (Feyereisen et al., 2007). All couples undergoing PGD are required to adhere to a strict family planning and effective contraceptive strategy, and undergo in vitro fertilization (IVF) treatment, even they are not infertile, to generate multiple embryos in vitro. This will start by controlled ovarian hyper stimulation, and then oocyte maturation is triggered by administering HCG, followed by oocyte retrieval under mild sedation.
The preferred method of fertilization is intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) which is the injection of a single spermatozoon into each oocyte to avoid any genetic contamination that might arise from excess spermatozoa. Embryo development is monitored daily until the diagnosis is made and the normal embryos are selected for transfer. Embryo transfers are usually performed on day’s 4-6 post retrieval at morulae/blastocyst stages. The most common biopsy strategy is the removal of one or two blastomeres from 6-10 cell stage embryos (Coskun et al., 2010).
Since the procedures involve extra treatment of the patient and manipulations of the embryos, it could be suspected that PGD and related manipulations might affect the pregnancy and/or the offspring.
Review of earlier publications about this issue showed that there were no observable detrimental effects of PGD on children born after the procedure (Storm et al., 2000), PGD itself doesn’t seem to cause an increased risk of any particular pregnancy complication (Storm et al., 2000). One recent study also showed that embryo biopsy doesn’t add risk for the health of singleton children born after PGD (Liebaers et al., 2010).
The aim of this retrospective study was to evaluate if there is any effect of PGD on birth defects, perinatal morbidity and mortality, neonatal outcome and to find the rate of misdiagnosis.
Subjects and Setting:
This was a retrospective chart review of 94 pregnancies achieved after PGD from 2001-2009. All couples who had PGD for single gene disorders or chromosomal abnormalities at King Faisal Specialized Hospital & Research Center, who had clinical pregnancy, were included in the study. The patients got pregnant by IVF treatment followed by blastomere biopsy from 6-10 cells embryos.
Data Collection:
Data on pregnancy and perinatal outcome were collected. As for the comparison, spontaneous pregnancies were selected to match for maternal age, parity, year of birth, gestational age at delivery and fetal sex, from the Labour and Delivery unit registry in our hospital.
Main outcome measures: Multiple pregnancies, gestational age at delivery, mode of delivery, sex, apgar score (A/S), birth weight, presence of birth defects, misdiagnosis and perinatal and neonatal mortalities, were collected for both groups.
Definitions:
A birth defect in our study was defined as: Any anomaly, functional or structural, that presents in infancy or later in life and is caused by events preceding birth, whether inherited, or acquired.
Term delivery was defined as: A delivery after 37 completed weeks of gestation calculated from first day of last menstrual period for spontaneous conceptions and from the date of embryo transfer (+2 weeks) for the PGD pregnancies.
Statistical Analysis:
Obstetrical and neonatal outcomes of natural versus PGD pregnancies were compared. A Chi-squared test of significance of the difference between the groups was used. A P value of less than 0.05 is considered as significant.
Ethical Approval:
The management of each pregnancy was not modified by the study, so it was exempted from IRB approval. Department Approval was obtained prior to data collection process.
In a total, 94 PGD pregnancies were available and reviewed. These resulted in 70 deliveries, 6 spontaneous miscarriages, 15 lost to follow up and 3 were still pregnant during data collection (Figure 1).
70 PGD pregnancies were matched to 70 naturally conceived pregnancies for: maternal age, parity, GA at delivery, year of birth & reproductive history (Table 2). There was no significant differences between these two groups.
Of the 70 PGD pregnancies that ended by delivery, 8 (12%) were multiple pregnancies (7 twins and 1 triplet), and 62 (88%) were singletons, whereas the 70 spontaneous pregnancies resulted in significantly less multiples (3%, two twins) (Table 3).
The PGD pregnancies resulted in delivery of 79 babies, three were stillborn, of which, two were monochorionic twins in a set of triplet pregnancy, and the third was an anencephalic baby in a set of dichorionic twins, resulting in 76 born alive, two died as neonates, one of them secondary to prematurity and the other was a sudden death with no clear cause identified, leaving 74 babies alive, so overall perinatal mortality rate was calculated to be 6.3% and 3.2% for singletons.
On the other hand, the spontaneous pregnancy group ended in delivery of 72 babies, one died in the neonatal period secondary to prematurity, which was the outcome of a singleton pregnancy, giving an overall perinatal mortality rate of 1.4% (Table 3)
Major congenital malformations (Table 4) were seen in 4 children of the PGD group (two congenital heart disease, one anencephaly and one with multiple congenital anomalies including left lung hypoplasia, absent left pulmonary artery, polydactyly and dysmorphism).
Two of these birth defects were diagnosed in one of the two fetuses of two twin pregnancies and the other two were seen in singletons, giving a rate of (5%) in total and 2/62 (3.2%) in the sub group of singletons of PGD pregnancies. Of those babies, one died neonatally and three are still alive. In comparison, major malformations were seen in three of the 72 babies naturally conceived, (one cervical teratoma, one congenital heart disease and one right ectopic kidney), all of them were in the singleton group and the three are still alive. This gives an overall rate of (-4.1 %-), but if calculated for singletons alone would be 3/68 (4.4%). (Table 3)
The mean gestational age at delivery in the PGD pregnancies was 37.5 weeks for singletons and 34 weeks for multiples. Prematurity was observed in 12 deliveries (17%), 7 singletons and 5 multiples. So the percentage of singletons delivered preterm was (11%). Median birth weight was 3031 grams for singleton and 2067 grams for multiples. Spontaneous pregnancies had similar outcome of the PGD group, the mean gestational age at delivery was 38 weeks for singletons and 31 weeks for multiples.
Prematurity was observed in 14 (20%) of all deliveries, 12 of them were among singletons and 2 were among multiples. By this preterm delivery among singletons in this group was (18%). Median birth weight was 2919 grams for singletons and 1512 grams for multiples (Table 5).
There was a tendency to have more NICU admissions in the PGD group (25%) compared to the naturally conceived babies (14%), (Tables 6).
As for the mode of delivery (Table 3), 28 (40%) of our PGD pregnancies were delivered by C/S, compared to 26 (37%) of the naturally conceived pregnancie. Among singletons, the rate was (30% vs 34% in PGD group and spontaneous group respectively).
The sex distribution of the children born after PGD was 34 (43%) males and 45 (57%) females, while in the other group 36 (50%) of the born babies were males and 36 (50%) were females (Table 5).
From the PGD group, 11 (16%) chose to undergo PND and the pregnancies were found to be free from the disease for which PGD was performed. Chorionic villous sampling was carried out in eight patients and the other three had amniocentesis. One misdiagnosis was seen in a case of Joubert’s syndrome giving a misdiagnosis rate of (1.4%), no PND was performed for this case.
This retrospective study of babies born after PGD, was done to assess the possible risks of PGD associated procedures on pregnancy outcomes by compare it to pregnancy outcomes after natural conception in a similar group.
The data obtained in this study confirmed the earlier findings showing that PGD doesn't increase the risk of major malformations nor does it add any extra risks to the health of the born babies (Storm et al., 2000).
When we compared the outcomes of our PGD babies, with the data collected on babies born after spontaneous pregnancies, we found very comparable results for GA at delivery and birth weight as reported by (Storm et al., 2000) publications and in the 8th ESHRE PGD consortium report (Goossens et al., 2008).
A finding to be mentioned in our study is that the PGD group has significantly more multiple pregnancies compared to the spontaneous pregnancy group. This finding is easily explained by the fact that all PGD pregnancies are originating from IVF, which puts them at higher risk of having multiples (Ryan et al., 2004).
In our study, there was no statistically significant difference in the incidence of perinatal mortality, risk of congenital malformations or C/S rate between the PGD group and the natural conception group. Similar results were reported by different researchers (Storm et al 2000, Goossens et al., 2008)
The sex ratio of 57
The conclusion of our study is that, embryo biopsy is unlikely to be adding any risk to the health of babies born after PGD when compared to that of babies born after natural conception. Further data on the health of these children at later ages seems necessary, including even larger numbers of children. Strategies for single embryo transfer should be considered to reduce the multiples and their associated complications in PGD pregnancies.
Clearly Auctoresonline and particularly Psychology and Mental Health Care Journal is dedicated to improving health care services for individuals and populations. The editorial boards' ability to efficiently recognize and share the global importance of health literacy with a variety of stakeholders. Auctoresonline publishing platform can be used to facilitate of optimal client-based services and should be added to health care professionals' repertoire of evidence-based health care resources.
Journal of Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Intervention The submission and review process was adequate. However I think that the publication total value should have been enlightened in early fases. Thank you for all.
Journal of Women Health Care and Issues By the present mail, I want to say thank to you and tour colleagues for facilitating my published article. Specially thank you for the peer review process, support from the editorial office. I appreciate positively the quality of your journal.
Journal of Clinical Research and Reports I would be very delighted to submit my testimonial regarding the reviewer board and the editorial office. The reviewer board were accurate and helpful regarding any modifications for my manuscript. And the editorial office were very helpful and supportive in contacting and monitoring with any update and offering help. It was my pleasure to contribute with your promising Journal and I am looking forward for more collaboration.
We would like to thank the Journal of Thoracic Disease and Cardiothoracic Surgery because of the services they provided us for our articles. The peer-review process was done in a very excellent time manner, and the opinions of the reviewers helped us to improve our manuscript further. The editorial office had an outstanding correspondence with us and guided us in many ways. During a hard time of the pandemic that is affecting every one of us tremendously, the editorial office helped us make everything easier for publishing scientific work. Hope for a more scientific relationship with your Journal.
The peer-review process which consisted high quality queries on the paper. I did answer six reviewers’ questions and comments before the paper was accepted. The support from the editorial office is excellent.
Journal of Neuroscience and Neurological Surgery. I had the experience of publishing a research article recently. The whole process was simple from submission to publication. The reviewers made specific and valuable recommendations and corrections that improved the quality of my publication. I strongly recommend this Journal.
Dr. Katarzyna Byczkowska My testimonial covering: "The peer review process is quick and effective. The support from the editorial office is very professional and friendly. Quality of the Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Interventions is scientific and publishes ground-breaking research on cardiology that is useful for other professionals in the field.
Thank you most sincerely, with regard to the support you have given in relation to the reviewing process and the processing of my article entitled "Large Cell Neuroendocrine Carcinoma of The Prostate Gland: A Review and Update" for publication in your esteemed Journal, Journal of Cancer Research and Cellular Therapeutics". The editorial team has been very supportive.
Testimony of Journal of Clinical Otorhinolaryngology: work with your Reviews has been a educational and constructive experience. The editorial office were very helpful and supportive. It was a pleasure to contribute to your Journal.
Dr. Bernard Terkimbi Utoo, I am happy to publish my scientific work in Journal of Women Health Care and Issues (JWHCI). The manuscript submission was seamless and peer review process was top notch. I was amazed that 4 reviewers worked on the manuscript which made it a highly technical, standard and excellent quality paper. I appreciate the format and consideration for the APC as well as the speed of publication. It is my pleasure to continue with this scientific relationship with the esteem JWHCI.
This is an acknowledgment for peer reviewers, editorial board of Journal of Clinical Research and Reports. They show a lot of consideration for us as publishers for our research article “Evaluation of the different factors associated with side effects of COVID-19 vaccination on medical students, Mutah university, Al-Karak, Jordan”, in a very professional and easy way. This journal is one of outstanding medical journal.
Dear Hao Jiang, to Journal of Nutrition and Food Processing We greatly appreciate the efficient, professional and rapid processing of our paper by your team. If there is anything else we should do, please do not hesitate to let us know. On behalf of my co-authors, we would like to express our great appreciation to editor and reviewers.
As an author who has recently published in the journal "Brain and Neurological Disorders". I am delighted to provide a testimonial on the peer review process, editorial office support, and the overall quality of the journal. The peer review process at Brain and Neurological Disorders is rigorous and meticulous, ensuring that only high-quality, evidence-based research is published. The reviewers are experts in their fields, and their comments and suggestions were constructive and helped improve the quality of my manuscript. The review process was timely and efficient, with clear communication from the editorial office at each stage. The support from the editorial office was exceptional throughout the entire process. The editorial staff was responsive, professional, and always willing to help. They provided valuable guidance on formatting, structure, and ethical considerations, making the submission process seamless. Moreover, they kept me informed about the status of my manuscript and provided timely updates, which made the process less stressful. The journal Brain and Neurological Disorders is of the highest quality, with a strong focus on publishing cutting-edge research in the field of neurology. The articles published in this journal are well-researched, rigorously peer-reviewed, and written by experts in the field. The journal maintains high standards, ensuring that readers are provided with the most up-to-date and reliable information on brain and neurological disorders. In conclusion, I had a wonderful experience publishing in Brain and Neurological Disorders. The peer review process was thorough, the editorial office provided exceptional support, and the journal's quality is second to none. I would highly recommend this journal to any researcher working in the field of neurology and brain disorders.
Dear Agrippa Hilda, Journal of Neuroscience and Neurological Surgery, Editorial Coordinator, I trust this message finds you well. I want to extend my appreciation for considering my article for publication in your esteemed journal. I am pleased to provide a testimonial regarding the peer review process and the support received from your editorial office. The peer review process for my paper was carried out in a highly professional and thorough manner. The feedback and comments provided by the authors were constructive and very useful in improving the quality of the manuscript. This rigorous assessment process undoubtedly contributes to the high standards maintained by your journal.
International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews. I strongly recommend to consider submitting your work to this high-quality journal. The support and availability of the Editorial staff is outstanding and the review process was both efficient and rigorous.
Thank you very much for publishing my Research Article titled “Comparing Treatment Outcome Of Allergic Rhinitis Patients After Using Fluticasone Nasal Spray And Nasal Douching" in the Journal of Clinical Otorhinolaryngology. As Medical Professionals we are immensely benefited from study of various informative Articles and Papers published in this high quality Journal. I look forward to enriching my knowledge by regular study of the Journal and contribute my future work in the field of ENT through the Journal for use by the medical fraternity. The support from the Editorial office was excellent and very prompt. I also welcome the comments received from the readers of my Research Article.
Dear Erica Kelsey, Editorial Coordinator of Cancer Research and Cellular Therapeutics Our team is very satisfied with the processing of our paper by your journal. That was fast, efficient, rigorous, but without unnecessary complications. We appreciated the very short time between the submission of the paper and its publication on line on your site.
I am very glad to say that the peer review process is very successful and fast and support from the Editorial Office. Therefore, I would like to continue our scientific relationship for a long time. And I especially thank you for your kindly attention towards my article. Have a good day!
"We recently published an article entitled “Influence of beta-Cyclodextrins upon the Degradation of Carbofuran Derivatives under Alkaline Conditions" in the Journal of “Pesticides and Biofertilizers” to show that the cyclodextrins protect the carbamates increasing their half-life time in the presence of basic conditions This will be very helpful to understand carbofuran behaviour in the analytical, agro-environmental and food areas. We greatly appreciated the interaction with the editor and the editorial team; we were particularly well accompanied during the course of the revision process, since all various steps towards publication were short and without delay".
I would like to express my gratitude towards you process of article review and submission. I found this to be very fair and expedient. Your follow up has been excellent. I have many publications in national and international journal and your process has been one of the best so far. Keep up the great work.
We are grateful for this opportunity to provide a glowing recommendation to the Journal of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy. We found that the editorial team were very supportive, helpful, kept us abreast of timelines and over all very professional in nature. The peer review process was rigorous, efficient and constructive that really enhanced our article submission. The experience with this journal remains one of our best ever and we look forward to providing future submissions in the near future.
I am very pleased to serve as EBM of the journal, I hope many years of my experience in stem cells can help the journal from one way or another. As we know, stem cells hold great potential for regenerative medicine, which are mostly used to promote the repair response of diseased, dysfunctional or injured tissue using stem cells or their derivatives. I think Stem Cell Research and Therapeutics International is a great platform to publish and share the understanding towards the biology and translational or clinical application of stem cells.
I would like to give my testimony in the support I have got by the peer review process and to support the editorial office where they were of asset to support young author like me to be encouraged to publish their work in your respected journal and globalize and share knowledge across the globe. I really give my great gratitude to your journal and the peer review including the editorial office.
I am delighted to publish our manuscript entitled "A Perspective on Cocaine Induced Stroke - Its Mechanisms and Management" in the Journal of Neuroscience and Neurological Surgery. The peer review process, support from the editorial office, and quality of the journal are excellent. The manuscripts published are of high quality and of excellent scientific value. I recommend this journal very much to colleagues.
Dr.Tania Muñoz, My experience as researcher and author of a review article in The Journal Clinical Cardiology and Interventions has been very enriching and stimulating. The editorial team is excellent, performs its work with absolute responsibility and delivery. They are proactive, dynamic and receptive to all proposals. Supporting at all times the vast universe of authors who choose them as an option for publication. The team of review specialists, members of the editorial board, are brilliant professionals, with remarkable performance in medical research and scientific methodology. Together they form a frontline team that consolidates the JCCI as a magnificent option for the publication and review of high-level medical articles and broad collective interest. I am honored to be able to share my review article and open to receive all your comments.
“The peer review process of JPMHC is quick and effective. Authors are benefited by good and professional reviewers with huge experience in the field of psychology and mental health. The support from the editorial office is very professional. People to contact to are friendly and happy to help and assist any query authors might have. Quality of the Journal is scientific and publishes ground-breaking research on mental health that is useful for other professionals in the field”.
Dear editorial department: On behalf of our team, I hereby certify the reliability and superiority of the International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews in the peer review process, editorial support, and journal quality. Firstly, the peer review process of the International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews is rigorous, fair, transparent, fast, and of high quality. The editorial department invites experts from relevant fields as anonymous reviewers to review all submitted manuscripts. These experts have rich academic backgrounds and experience, and can accurately evaluate the academic quality, originality, and suitability of manuscripts. The editorial department is committed to ensuring the rigor of the peer review process, while also making every effort to ensure a fast review cycle to meet the needs of authors and the academic community. Secondly, the editorial team of the International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews is composed of a group of senior scholars and professionals with rich experience and professional knowledge in related fields. The editorial department is committed to assisting authors in improving their manuscripts, ensuring their academic accuracy, clarity, and completeness. Editors actively collaborate with authors, providing useful suggestions and feedback to promote the improvement and development of the manuscript. We believe that the support of the editorial department is one of the key factors in ensuring the quality of the journal. Finally, the International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews is renowned for its high- quality articles and strict academic standards. The editorial department is committed to publishing innovative and academically valuable research results to promote the development and progress of related fields. The International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews is reasonably priced and ensures excellent service and quality ratio, allowing authors to obtain high-level academic publishing opportunities in an affordable manner. I hereby solemnly declare that the International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews has a high level of credibility and superiority in terms of peer review process, editorial support, reasonable fees, and journal quality. Sincerely, Rui Tao.
Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Interventions I testity the covering of the peer review process, support from the editorial office, and quality of the journal.
